Well, this is interesting. As some rumours already suggested, Google and Verizon have released a joint proposal for a legislative framework regarding net neutrality. This being Google and all, some of you may expect this to be all flower-farting unicorns darting across rainbows, but sadly, that's not the case. This proposal? Well, it's not good.

Grab some Tullock to read, or just think about how pretty much every major policy issue in all recorded history gets written to favor the best connected.

Giving the government control* is the worst possible solution. It isn't that it is perfect when the government isn't in control--it is just better. The false choice here is between an imperfect market and a perfect law. Well, if such a beast existed, the perfect law would be better. But it doesn't, and it won't. Even if it were "perfect" now, the landscape changes much, much faster than the law will (or can) change, so it would need to be kept in a constant state of "perfection" through constant changes. Each change will be done with only the best motives and the comprehensive understanding of both technology and business that politicians are selected for. (The Internet is not a truck! It is a series of tubes!)

If you are really, really lucky the first draft of the law will be "pure" (this particular deal shows how likely that is to happen). Within 5y it will exist with no other purpose than to protect the entrenched firms with the best lobbyists from any competition. How else would they be able to have the cash on hand to hire all those ex-politicians for part-time, $500k/year "consulting" jobs after they retire?

* I use "control" advisedly. Anytime one party can say, "Do it my way or go to prison," I acknowledge that person as the one in control.